Four more years - then we'll know

[Ozoned]

"I didn't make this statement, you have the burdon of proof. show us this anti-war platform."



Here you go


So, if you are done trolling, what do you think about this Dems opinion. Does it give you any cause to think about the long-term implications of a Kerry win?

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, lemme get his straight, Ozoned. We should spend another half a trillion dollars, and several thousand young lives, with ~6:1 wounded vs killed, to find out if we can impose our will on one of the world's most ancient and entrenched cultures?

Who says they want what we call democracy? And what makes anybody think that such would actually be US friendly, all things considered, or that the Bush regime will allow it? The opinion piece could have been written by Pollyanna, given the false assumptions it's built on.

The contrast between Iraqi and American reactions to allegations of brutality and murder from Allawi might be instructive-

We said "Uhh-oh..."

Many of them said "Now, That guy, that guy's a leader!"

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, lemme get his straight, Ozoned. We should spend another half a trillion dollars, and several thousand young lives, with ~6:1 wounded vs killed, to find out if we can impose our will on one of the world's most ancient and entrenched cultures?

Who says they want what we call democracy? And what makes anybody think that such would actually be US friendly, all things considered, or that the Bush regime will allow it? The opinion piece could have been written by Pollyanna, given the false assumptions it's built on.

The contrast between Iraqi and American reactions to allegations of brutality and murder from Allawi might be instructive-

We said "Uhh-oh..."

Many of them said "Now, That guy, that guy's a leader!"

Do you believe, with a Kerry win in November, that we won't see a pullout from Iraq?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Do you believe, with a Kerry win in November, that we won't see a pullout from Iraq?

That's inevitable under the best of circumstances. In fact, even Bushwhacko's stated aim is to get out. The only question is whether we want whether we want to trust getting to that point to the same inept moron who forgot to plan what he was going to do with it before we went in and sold the work to his rich Haliburton buddies.

Then, of course, there's the rest of my original list. There is no intellectually defensible reason to trust Bushwhacko with another four years... unless you happen to be a rich white CEO of an energy, chemical or other polluting industry or a pharmaceutical exec who's also happens to be so blinded by his religion that he can't deal with scientific reality, regardless of the benefits.

 

[Todd33]

http://www.google.com/search?s...-8&q=bush+anti-gay

Oh wait, that's not proof you dolt.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Todd33
http://www.google.com/search?s...-8&q=bush+anti-gay

Oh wait, that's not proof you dolt.

I would expect no less of a reply from someone who is obviously slow or limited in intellectual, emotional, or academic progress.

Have a nice day.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Ozone you make a critical mistake in what you believe Democrats will do. You say we are all opposed to the war itself and want to pull out immediately. Not true. While we opposed the reasons for going to war, and the way in which it was fought (and still being fought), we realize that we are now stuck in this mess. There is no hope for a speedy exit, and we have no intentions of leaving Iraq to fend for itself.

What you will see under Democratic leadership is strong diplomacy and an end to dangerous irrational and horribly planned preemptive strikes upon other nations. You may call it soft on defense, weak on terror, I call it smart.

 

[Todd33]

You fed me a yahoo search as "proof". I fed you the same inane crap. Some day I can strive to be so intellectually superior as you.

 

[chess9]

Two points:

I will vote for Kerry regardless of any supposedly good arguments for that phish Bush.

We can and should pull all of our troops out of Iraq now. A rapid, phased withdrawal is all that is necessary. 90 days. The international community will have to step in.

-Robert

 

[Ozoned]

Sudheer Anne, You have a strong opinion. I would answer it with one that has equal weight, but I am afraid that someone might get their panties in a bunch over how I respond.

This article asks a very hard question and it is based upon an opinion presumably built upon a lifetime of affiliation with the Democratic party.

Obviously, this is not a question that I must give much serious thought.

The reaction to the 'question' is what answers the questions that I might have on the subject .

 

[Jhhnn]

Nah, Ozoned, we're not pulling out- we be stuck to de tarbaby real good, now... Kerry acknowledges as much, as does anybody with a lick of sense.

Doesn't mean, however, that there's any justification whatsoever for voting back into office the delusional fools and charlatans who got us there.

While the insurgents may well see Bush's demise as an opening, ordinary Iraqis may see it as one of a different kind. We're in the unfortunate position where the situation isn't really getting better, at all. What we're doing isn't working, and it'll definitely take a major housecleaning to get the stink out, freshen up, try again.

 

[IndieSnob]

I really don't see Kerry, nor the democrats pulling troops out of Iraq untill we get the country back to as "normal" as it can be. I honestly can't give you an answer on how Bush or Kerry will do with Iraq once either's term starts, but imho I really think the only difference is that Bush would probably have the troops there longer then Kerry, and I can't tell you unless we see the exact situation whether it's good or bad. That being said, I'm voting for Kerry instead of Bush because of alot of other issues at hand. While the Iraq situation is huge to me, Kerry really hasn't given me much to go on for what he's going to do (nor much else sadly), but from what I think I know about what he will try to do, versus what Bush has done, I have to lean to Kerry.

 

[Ozoned]

Lately I hear two voices resonating from the Democratic party and amazingly I have just captured them here.

Originally posted by: jhhnn

" Nah, Ozoned, we're not pulling out- we be stuck to de tarbaby real good, now... Kerry acknowledges as much, as does anybody with a lick of sense."

Originally posted by: chess9

Two points:

I will vote for Kerry regardless of any supposedly good arguments for that phish Bush.

We can and should pull all of our troops out of Iraq now. A rapid, phased withdrawal is all that is necessary. 90 days. The international community will have to step in.

-Robert

Perhaps, the author is justified in wanting Bush to win.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lately I hear two voices resonating from the Democratic party and amazingly I have just captured them here.

<sarcasm>

I spent a good bit of time putting a longer, more detailed reply together, above. Since your system's back scrolling capabilities seem to be disabled, I will repost it here, just for you. You don't have to thank me (although I graciously accept all gratuities). I'm always glad to help someone with faulty hardware.

</sarcasm>

To answer your title question, I am damned sure I want Kerry to win. Four more years of Bushwhacko will be an even greater disaster than the last four. All we got was:

• Lies on top of lies and total ineptitude in leading us into an elective war without the support of the majority of the world and without any preparation to deal with the aftermath of that war. Lies about the reasons for going to war. Lies about the projected cost of the war. Lies about the projected manpower and equipement required to do the job.
  
• A record deficit due to both the war and ridiculous tax cuts for his rich buddies.
  
• Dismantlement and of environmental protection.
  
• Absolute stupidity in restricting funding of stem cell research.
  
• Total ripoff sellouts to Haliburton with no bid contracts.
  
• More total ripoff sellouts to those shipping jobs offshore.
  
• More total ripoff sellouts to the pharmaceutical industry, keeping the U.S. the most expensive place in the world to buy life saving medications and blocking access to the same medicines from Canada.
  
• All Children Left Behind because his vaunted "No Child Left Behind" act is unfunded hot air.
  
• A catalcysmic loss of jobs due to failed economic policies.
  
• A man who puts his "faith" ahead of scientific evidence of how wrong he is on so many issues and is willing to work to thrash the U.S. Constitution to empower that one faith to the detriment of all other citizens.

I do NOT want four more years of this prick. I'm voting for Kerry because he is the one who can take it away from Bushwhacko, but I would vote for a piece of roadkill before I voted for George W. Bush for anything.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not stuck on Iraq. I know Kerry and Bush's position on Iraq aren't that different, but at this point do you expect them to be? Honestly there is only one real solution to the Iraq problem at this point, and it is to stay the course.

What I'm looking at is the future of our foreign policy. Judging by Bush's actions, it seems we will continue our preemptive striking on whomever we deem to be dangerous to our national security (irregardless of who is on our side internationally). I don't believe this is the smartest and most effective way to deal with terrorism, in fact I believe it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how to deal with the dangers and threats of terrorism.

Here's the main difference I see in Bush's and Kerry's approach to terrorism. Bush sees terrorists as something he must stomp out and eliminate at all costs. His approach is based on using our military power to squash the terrorists. What he doesn't understand is that the ideology of terrorists will still survive, no matter how much force you use. They're like those damn cockroaches that keep coming back no matter how much bugspray you use or how many of them you kill. Yes you can stop them from committing another 9/11, but can you stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself up in the middle of Times Square? I believe Kerry's approach is doubly effective: stomp out the terrorists and by using diplomacy try and kill the ideology as well. Diplomacy is an extraordinarily powerful weapon that we have on our side, and Kerry intends to fully make use of it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
To be perfectly honest, I'm not stuck on Iraq. I know Kerry and Bush's position on Iraq aren't that different, but at this point do you expect them to be? Honestly there is only one real solution to the Iraq problem at this point, and it is to stay the course.

What I'm looking at is the future of our foreign policy. Judging by Bush's actions, it seems we will continue our preemptive striking on whomever we deem to be dangerous to our national security (irregardless of who is on our side internationally). I don't believe this is the smartest and most effective way to deal with terrorism, in fact I believe it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how to deal with the dangers and threats of terrorism.

Here's the main difference I see in Bush's and Kerry's approach to terrorism. Bush sees terrorists as something he must stomp out and eliminate at all costs. His approach is based on using our military power to squash the terrorists. What he doesn't understand is that the ideology of terrorists will still survive, no matter how much force you use. They're like those damn cockroaches that keep coming back no matter how much bugspray you use or how many of them you kill. Yes you can stop them from committing another 9/11, but can you stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself up in the middle of Times Square? I believe Kerry's approach is doubly effective: stomp out the terrorists and by using diplomacy try and kill the ideology as well. Diplomacy is an extraordinarily powerful weapon that we have on our side, and Kerry intends to fully make use of it.

Excellent post. I don't necessarily agree with your opinions, but the way you stated it lays it right on the table, just the way it should be. :beer:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lately I hear two voices resonating from the Democratic party and amazingly I have just captured them here.

<sarcasm>

I spent a good bit of time putting a longer, more detailed reply together, above. Since your system's back scrolling capabilities seem to be disabled, I will repost it here, just for you. You don't have to thank me (although I graciously accept all gratuities). I'm always glad to help someone with faulty hardware.

</sarcasm>

To answer your title question, I am damned sure I want Kerry to win. Four more years of Bushwhacko will be an even greater disaster than the last four. All we got was:

• Lies on top of lies and total ineptitude in leading us into an elective war without the support of the majority of the world and without any preparation to deal with the aftermath of that war. Lies about the reasons for going to war. Lies about the projected cost of the war. Lies about the projected manpower and equipement required to do the job.
  
• A record deficit due to both the war and ridiculous tax cuts for his rich buddies.
  
• Dismantlement and of environmental protection.
  
• Absolute stupidity in restricting funding of stem cell research.
  
• Total ripoff sellouts to Haliburton with no bid contracts.
  
• More total ripoff sellouts to those shipping jobs offshore.
  
• More total ripoff sellouts to the pharmaceutical industry, keeping the U.S. the most expensive place in the world to buy life saving medications and blocking access to the same medicines from Canada.
  
• All Children Left Behind because his vaunted "No Child Left Behind" act is unfunded hot air.
  
• A catalcysmic loss of jobs due to failed economic policies.
  
• A man who puts his "faith" ahead of scientific evidence of how wrong he is on so many issues and is willing to work to thrash the U.S. Constitution to empower that one faith to the detriment of all other citizens.

I do NOT want four more years of this prick. I'm voting for Kerry because he is the one who can take it away from Bushwhacko, but I would vote for a piece of roadkill before I voted for George W. Bush for anything.

<sarcasm> Sorry Harvey, I forgot about the highly opinionated Bush Haters. That or maybe I just don't have time to respond to their formatted driveling talking points.</sarcasm>

Either way, I heard you the first time. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
To be perfectly honest, I'm not stuck on Iraq. I know Kerry and Bush's position on Iraq aren't that different, but at this point do you expect them to be? Honestly there is only one real solution to the Iraq problem at this point, and it is to stay the course.

What I'm looking at is the future of our foreign policy. Judging by Bush's actions, it seems we will continue our preemptive striking on whomever we deem to be dangerous to our national security (irregardless of who is on our side internationally). I don't believe this is the smartest and most effective way to deal with terrorism, in fact I believe it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how to deal with the dangers and threats of terrorism.

Here's the main difference I see in Bush's and Kerry's approach to terrorism. Bush sees terrorists as something he must stomp out and eliminate at all costs. His approach is based on using our military power to squash the terrorists. What he doesn't understand is that the ideology of terrorists will still survive, no matter how much force you use. They're like those damn cockroaches that keep coming back no matter how much bugspray you use or how many of them you kill. Yes you can stop them from committing another 9/11, but can you stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself up in the middle of Times Square? I believe Kerry's approach is doubly effective: stomp out the terrorists and by using diplomacy try and kill the ideology as well. Diplomacy is an extraordinarily powerful weapon that we have on our side, and Kerry intends to fully make use of it.

Excellent post. I don't necessarily agree with your opinions, but the way you stated it lays it right on the table, just the way it should be. :beer:

You know what Cyclo, this is the discussion the American people deserve from both candidates. I hope the debates will force both candidates to really tackle this issue head on.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
You know what Cyclo, this is the discussion the American people deserve from both candidates. I hope the debates will force both candidates to really tackle this issue head on.

Agreed 100%, and I'd like to kick Bush in the junk for bailing on the third debate, which was supposed to focus on foreign policy. (I can say that, right? Secret Service is on their way...)

 

[CQuinn]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Lately I hear two voices resonating from the Democratic party and amazingly I have just captured them here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, let me provide you with a alternate voice.

We liberated Iraq to show that democracy could work as a force of change against despotic regimes
(at least that's the explanation this quarter).

We claim that our system of government can weather any crisis, because it is built upon the
stability of all citizens, not the will of just one leader.

We tell the Iragis that among the greatest gifts we have given them, is the right to freely speak
their minds about their government, and the power to change that government if it does not
suit their needs.

We pride ourselves on leading by example; we faced up to a devastating attack, we made the war
against international terrorism our top priority, and brought the full force of our military to bear
on a nation (Afghanistan) that was well known for harboring terrorist groups. In the interim
also causing several other countries to think twice about overt support for those groups.

Then what better exampe of democratic leadership can we provide, not just to the Iragi's, but to
all world governments; than by changing our own government, according to the standard timetable
created by our forefathers in their "grand experiement", and proving that such a dramatic shift
in leaders will not undermine our societies ability to succeed, nor diminish our position on the
world stage.


Edit: corrected syntax and spelling errors, I must have been more think than I tired when I wrote that.

 

[chess9]

cquinn:

Nice argument, nothwithstanding the syntax and punctuation errors.

-Robert

 

[smashp]

That first article raised some interesting points. What I took away from this article is that if Kerry Wins, the nation will become even more polorized. The Congress will be a thorn in Kerry's side. Nothing will seem to get done in Washington. Kerry will be seen as a lame duck President. who knows what happens next?

(this sounds very simular to the first 9 months of Bush 43)


The real Question is Why cant we compromise on Ideas. Why must we insist to see the opposite ideology fail at all costs. Why cant we make laws and create programs where we get Bipartisan effort. This Political Fighting in this country is becomming insane.

I can tell you what I plan to do about it. Turn off the Tv and no more talk radio. This is their fight now. Not Mine. Im Tired of being filled with Raw hate listening to these Talking heads manipulate and the radio personalities propagate. This isnt News, Its nothing more than a Cock Fight.

 

[Wolfdog]

There is more light being shed on what may end up being another Bush all out lie. Two nights ago after the RNC nonetheless there has been evidence building that Osama did not fund the sept 11 attacks. They were funded by private contributions. Which may mean that the "terrorism" problem is far bigger than Bush can even grasp. How do you change the opinion of a large group of people that hate America? What has our government been doing that we aren't aware of? I do know that the PR spinmeysters only let us in on a very small amount of information. I for one hate the government for making, funding and training al queda back in the 60-'s and 70's. There wouldn't be a problem with that group if the American government wouldn't have subsidized the problem. When it comes down to it we are still funding terrorist groups when it suits the needs of the US government right now under Bushs reign. For what we now call a "freedom" fighter is tomorrows terrorist groups.
As for the Iraq debacle I have a seriously pro-American stance. When we can feed, clothe and pave our roads right here in the US then we can do the same elsewhere. Bush has done the exact opposite. Saddam wasn't a threat for the US at all like he said it was. When it comes down to it there were no WOMD to be found and Saddams military was third class. The US military rolled right over him in a matter of months. Now we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas rebuilding thier cities and towns with tax money we haven't even made yet. That tax money should be spent right here in the US. Bush has sold every American tax payer down the river for a generation to come. If I were in the senate the day that Cheney said to go F' yourself to the senator, I would have told him to stop f'ing the American taxpayer with his Haliburton gouging. We are paying billions unnecessarily and the Democratic senator was right in chiding him for it. Maybe we should make Cheney himself repay the overpayments.

 

[Jhhnn]

Although I often agree with chess9, I'm afraid that unilateral rapid withdrawal from Iraq would precipitate bloodshed on an epic scale, given the resources at stake, along with the deep ethnic and religious divisions among Iraqis and their neighbors. Between the Turks, Syrians, Iranians and the various Iraqi factions, the Euphrates could flow red for years...

As for an inability to compromise, one merely has to reference the remarks of Grover Norquist, possibly the most influential thinker among modern republicans. He defines bipartisanship as date rape... the methods of Tom DeLay might be educational, too...

These guys respect only strength

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

If there is anything to this guys opinion, then the republicans win no matter what november brings. The Democrats lose no matter what november brings.

I've often wondered the same thing as far as the Iraq mess but the lower class of American citizens that have been pushed even lower due to the Neocon Caste system may not survive another four years.

Hell, The Country may not even survive another four years.